Jharkhand High Court
Jamadar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.833 of 2006
------
1. Jamadar Yadav, Son of Sohan Yadav,
2. Subesh Yadav, Son of Sankar Yadav.
Both are residents of village- Turshadih, P.S. Hiranpur,
District-Pakur (Jharkhand)
.... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Vandana Singh, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P.
------
PRESENT
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated- 09.01.2025
By Court:- Heard Ms. Vandana Singh, learned Amicus Curiae appearing
for the appellants as well as Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P.
appearing for the State.
2. In compliance of the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by this Court
regarding whereabouts of the appellants it is brought on record
that appellant Niranjan yadav has died on 10.08.2020 and
appellant Basu Yadav died on 14.12.2023. Since appellants no.1
and 3 have been died during the pendency of this appeal and no
substitution application is on record, hence, the appeals related to
appellant Niranjan Yadav and Basu Yadav stands abated. Rest of
the appellants Jamadar yadav and Subesh Yadav, are re-
numbered as appellant nos.1 and 2 respectively.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.833 of 2006 Page | 1
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction dated 24.05.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Pakur, in Sessions Case No. 152 of 2004, whereby and whereunder
the appellants were held guilty and has been convicted for the
offences under Sections 307 and 450 read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with a fine of
Rs.1,000/- each under both sections with default stipulation.
Factual Matrix
4. The prosecution case is that on 23.09.2004, there was hot talk
erupted between the informant and the main accused Nirajan
Yadav (since deceased) at the cattle hut and accused Niranjan
Yadav threatened to kill the informant. On the same day, at about
11:00 PM, all the accused persons including these appellants
armed with danda, chansua and chheni forcibly entered into the
house of the informant by breaking window and caught hold the
informant and dragged him towards outside of the house. After
hearing hulla, the brother of the informant woke up and came out,
he was also caught hold by the accused persons and both of them
were brutally assaulted. Informant was assaulted by danda and
Chheni on his head, hand and legs and over whole body by
appellant Basu Yadav and the brother of the informant was
assaulted by Niranjan Yadav and Subesh Yadav. After hearing,
hue and cry, the villagers assembled and the appellants fled away.
5. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Hiranpur P.S. Case no.
54/2002 was registered under Sections 452, 341, 323, 324, 325, 326,
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.833 of 2006 Page | 2
307/34 of the I.P.C. was registered against accused/appellants.
6. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against the appellants and the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions for trial and disposal.
7. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against accused
persons, altogether 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
8. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false
implications. Further defence is that appellants are innocent and
have not committed any offence.
9. After conclusion of trial the learned trial court, after appraisal of
the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, held the appellants
guilty for the offences under Sections 307 and 450 read with 34 of
the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is
allegation of assaulting upon the informant and his brother by
deadly weapons like sharp weapon Chheni, but the injuries
sustained by the informant and his brother are simple in nature
caused by hard and blunt substance. Therefore, the ingredients of
intention and knowledge required for constituting for the offence
307, is absolutely lacking in this case, which has been ignored by
the learned trial court. Admittedly, there was previous enmity
between the parties and they were under litigating terms which
has been reflected in the F.I.R. itself. The place of occurrence has
also not been proved by the prosecution and witnesses have given
inconsistent and contradictory testimony in this regard. The place
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.833 of 2006 Page | 3
of occurrence is open field and not the house of the informant.
Therefore, offence under Section 450 I.P.C. is not attracted in this
case. It is further submitted that on the basis of facts proved in this
case, the offence under Sections 323 or 324 at best is attracted. The
appellants have undergone about four months custody during the
trial of the case and have sufficiently been punished for their guilt.
Admittedly, no overt act has been attributed to appellants rather
they have convicted with aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C. Hence, this
appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and order of
conviction and offence under Section 307 and 450 of the IP.C
and/or in the alternative the sentences of the appellants may be
reduced for the period undergone.
11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of
the appellants and submitted that the injury found on some vital
parts of the body which is dangerous to life and the learned trail
court has properly considered the evidence available on record
and passed the impugned judgment and order which suffers from
no illegality and infirmities and this appeal being devoid of merits
is fit to be dismissed.
12. I have gone through the entire record and other materials
available on record along with impugned judgment in the light of
contentions raised on behalf of both side.
13. Brief resume of evidence adduced by prosecution will be helpful
in deciding the appeal:-
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.833 of 2006 Page | 4
P.W.1 (Dr. Satish Chandra Singh) is the doctor who has
examined the injured Hira Yadav and found following injuries.:-
(i) A sharp cut injury of 1" x 1/2" x Muscle deep over the left
lower hand 21/2 the wrist joint.
(ii) A sharp cut injury 1/2" x 1/2" x muscle deep over the left
temporal region of the head.
On the same date and time the doctor has also examined the
informant Ajay Yadav and found following injuries:-
(i) A lacerated wound of size 2" X 1/2" X skin deep over the
forehead.
(ii) A swelling of 1" diameter over the left lateral aspect of the
chest, above the rib margine. 5' above the rib margine.
(iii) A swelling of 11/2 dia over the frontal head.
In his cross-examination, he states that all the injuries
sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature and have
been caused by hard and blunt substance.
P.W.2 (Sanjay Kr. Yadav) is the brother of the informant and he
has stated that after hearing hue and cry, he went to the house of
the informant where he saw that all the accused persons
assaulting the informant and Hira Yadav.
In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he is the
brother of the informant and denied about any land dispute
between the parties and also not known that the mother of
Niranjan Yadav has filed any case against the informant.
P.W.3(Gujri Devi) is the sister-in-law of the informant and she
has also stated that the accused persons forcibly entered into her
house by breaking the window and took the informant and his
brother dragging outside of the house and brutally assaulted and
fully supported the evidence of Sanjay Yadav.
In her cross-examination, she had admitted that informant is
her own brother-in-law and further stated that police recorded
her statement at the night of the occurrence and she has shown
the broken window to the police who took away the said
window. She has further stated that the police have seen the
blood stains on the door. But denied about any land dispute
between the informant and the accused/appellants and also
denied that his Ajay Yadav and Hira Yadav had assaulted
Niranjan Yadav by entering into his house.
P.W.4 (Mithu Yadav) has also stated that he woke up by listening
the cries of P.W.3 (Gujri Devi) and went at her house and found
that accused persons were assaulting to Hira Yadav and Ajay
Yadav.
In his cross-examination, this witness has said that police
had recorded his statement at the night of occurrence and he has
denied that Ajay and Hira had assaulted to Niranjan Yadav by
entering into his house.
P.W.5 (Hira Yadav) is the injured and has fully supported the
prosecution story in his examination-in-chief.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.833 of 2006 Page | 6
P.W.6 (Rama Yadav) has also stated that he reached at the place
of occurrence after listening hue and cry and found that the
accused persons were assaulting to Ajay Yadav and Hira Yadav.
In his cross-examination, in which he had identified the
accused persons in the flash light of torch.
P.W.7 (Ajay Yadav) is the informant of this case and has
corroborated his previous statement as contained in F.I.R.
In his cross-examination, he states that he is on bail in the
case lodged by the mother of the Niranjan Yadav. He further
states that proceeding under Section 107 of CrP.C. is also going
on between the parties. He further states that his statement was
recorded on the same day of occurrence in which he has stated
that accused Basu and Jamadar Yadav have assaulted Hira Yadav
by means of Chheni. This witness has denied any injury
sustained by Niranjan Yadav.
P.W.8 (Animesh Kr. Gupta) is the I.O. of the case and in his
evidence he has given a detailed description of the place of
occurrence and stated that the accused-appellants forcibly
entered into the house of informant by breaking window which
has been seized. He has further given the detailed description of
second place of occurrence which is the open field of Hari Saw
situated at a distance of 200 yards from the house of informant. It
is further admitted by this witness that Niranjan Yadav has
sustained injuries due to falling on the stone which has been
mentioned in paragraph-3 of the case-diary.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.833 of 2006 Page | 7
14. The defence has also adduced several documentary evidences
available of record.
(i) Exhibit A- Injury report of the injured Hira Yadav
(ii) Exhibit 1/a - Injury report of the injured Ajay Yadav.
(iii) Exhibit 2- Fard Beyan
(iv) Exhibit 3- Formal F.I.R.
15. I have gone through the entire record of the case in the light of
the contentions raised on behalf of both side. The scuffle took
place between the parties due to old enmity and the occurrence
has taken place in the open field wherein one of the appellant
(Niranjan Yadav) has also sustained severe injuries, but he is no
more. The injuries sustained by the informant party appear to be
simple and muscle deep/skin deep only. Hence, by no stretch of
imagination, it can be inferred that there was intention or
knowledge of the appellants to cause death of the informant
party as is required for constituting the offence under Section 307
of the I.P.C. Since as per the evidence of the Investigating Officer,
the place of occurrence is the open field. Hence, no offence under
Sections 450 of the I.P.C. is made out.
16. In view of above discussion and reasons, I am of the firm view
that the learned trial court has not properly considered the
overall aspect of the case. Therefore, conviction and sentence
under Sections 307 and 450 is hereby, set aside. Rather, at best the
offences proved by the prosecution falls under Section 323 and
324 of the I.P.C., for which appellants have already undergone
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.833 of 2006 Page | 8
some period of custody during trial of the case and now two
decades have been lapsed from the date of occurrence.
17. Considering the overall aspects of the case, the appellants are
sentenced for imprisonment already undergone. In view of the
above, this appeal is partly allowed with alteration in conviction
and modification in sentence.
18. Considering the proper assistance of learned Amicus Curiae in
disposal of this case, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services
Committee is directed to pay remuneration of Rs.2,500/- to
Ms. Vandana Singh, the learned Amicus Curiae.
19. Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of.
20. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court records be sent
back to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
Dated:-09.01.2025
Amar/-
